rhino_document_summary

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not repeat that this is a read operation. The description adds modest value by indicating what the summary contains (object counts, layers), but it does not disclose behavior such as whether it aggregates across the entire document, handling of the 'active' document, or potential cost on large models. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence with the verb first and a parenthetical giving concrete examples. Every word earns its place; there is no filler, ambiguity, or wasted structure for a tool of this simplicity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential function well. It could add one clarifying detail about the default 'active' document behavior or when a summary is preferable to detailed listing tools, but nothing critical is missing given the annotation and output schema already supply context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is reported at 0%, and the description adds nothing about the 'args' parameter or the doc_id field. The nested doc_id does carry its own schema description and a default of 'active', which helps, but the top-level required 'args' object is opaque and the tool description provides no parameter context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('high-level summary of the document') with concrete examples of content (object counts, layers). It is clear enough for an agent to understand the tool's basic function, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-neighbor siblings such as rhino_status, rhino_list_objects, or rhino_layer_list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the large sibling list containing similarly described read/query tools (rhino_status, rhino_document_settings, rhino_count_objects, rhino_get_object_info), an agent has no basis to choose this one over those without opening each schema.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.